JeffBrooks
2nd Lieutenant
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Location
- Hutto, TX
Was Sheridan's relief of Warren after the Battle of Five Forks justified?
At that time, Sheridan's (and Grant's, for that matter) treatment of Warren was unfair. I believe that the argument could be made that Warren could have and should have been relieved at various times during the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. He was not particularly able for large portions of those campaigns and was somewhat lucky to have gotten through them with his authority intact.
Ryan
It's my opinion that Grant's permission to relieve Warren was a subtle message that Sheridan interpreted correctly. Warren had worn out his welcome with Grant and Meade over the past 11 months. Grant could have overruled Sheridan - he didn't. Meade could have interceded with Grant to try to save Warren's position - he didn't.I voted no. The case of Warren and Sheridan has always intrigued me and probably has its roots in personality differences between the men. Warren was quite deliberative and often questioned superior orders during the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, a trait that bedeviled Grant to no end. In fact, Grant gave Sheridan permission to relieve Warren prior to the Five Forks engagement. Sheridan too, was a more emotional, highly aggressive commander who had little patience for those like Warren, who Sheridan perceived as being less than effective. But at Five Forks, Sheridan was plain wrong. He blamed Warren for failing to bring up his V Corps in a timely manner, when the order to Warren barely gave enough time to do so, and for being being unavailable when in fact, Warren was trying to redirect General Crawford's division to the right position. Not to mention the fact that Warren's V Corps with Sheridan's cavalry made Five Forks the decisive Union victory that led to Appomattox about 10 days later. So Warren's relief would seem to be unjustified by the facts of the matter, and showed the spiteful side of Sheridan.
It's my opinion that Grant's permission to relieve Warren was a subtle message that Sheridan interpreted correctly. Warren had worn out his welcome with Grant and Meade over the past 11 months. Grant could have overruled Sheridan - he didn't. Meade could have interceded with Grant to try to save Warren's position - he didn't.
It's my opinion that Grant's permission to relieve Warren was a subtle message that Sheridan interpreted correctly. Warren had worn out his welcome with Grant and Meade over the past 11 months. Grant could have overruled Sheridan - he didn't. Meade could have interceded with Grant to try to save Warren's position - he didn't.
That reminds me I have your book on Sheridan on the shelf. I'll have to finally read it!There is no question that Grant gave him authority to do so. But Grant should have done it himself PRIOR to April 1. It was kind of cowardly of Grant to pass the buck. And there is no question that the specific reason given for Warren's relief by Little Phil the Pathological Liar was wrong and was an injustice.
I agree, but think that it conforms with some other choices Grant made.There is no question that Grant gave him authority to do so. But Grant should have done it himself PRIOR to April 1. It was kind of cowardly of Grant to pass the buck. And there is no question that the specific reason given for Warren's relief by Little Phil the Pathological Liar was wrong and was an injustice.
Not justified for Five Forks but in reality probably overdue. Possibly should have happened at Spottsylvania, and should have happened (I have come to believe) after the botched attack on Petersburg in June.
Same here... So many books on those darned shelves!That reminds me I have your book on Sheridan on the shelf. I'll have to finally read it!